The only hobby that I really have, in spite of quoting several in networking sites, is reading. Barring a couple of exceptions, I have never read the same book again. One of the books I cannot resist revisiting again and again is 'The Fountainhead', the by Ayn Rand.

Yesterday, I finished the book for the 'n'th time. As always, it left me dazed; the sheer boldness of the and the presentation of such intangible thoughts have always mesmerized me, to say the least. As always, Howard Roark, the protagonist of the book captivated me, totally.

For years, Howard Roark has been one of the most popular characters in the world. Back in the days when the agents working in an Indian BPO had to take an American pseudonym to appeal more to their Western clients, Howard Roark was the most sought after name.

For the uninformed, Howard Roark is a brilliant young architect of the modern school, whose bold and innovative designs are rejected by large segments of society. He believes in the merit of his revolutionary designs and has the courage to stand for them in the face of an antagonistic society. He is presented as the author's version of an man - one who embodies the virtues of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy.

Roark is the antithesis of contemporary belief that an individual is molded by social forces. He is not the product of his upbringing, his economic his family, his religious training, or his social background. He is a product of the choices he has made.

Roark is an example of free will - the theory that an individual has the power, by virtue of the choices he makes, to control the outcome of his own life. A man's thinking and values are not controlled by God or fate or society or any external factor - but solely by his own choice. Others (like Peter Keating) may choose to submit, but Roark will not. He is his own man. He is a brilliant thinker and he acts on his thinking. He is not a hypocrite.

This got me thinking. What if, Roark, retaining all of his other characteristics, had not been brilliant? Could he have afforded to live like he did? What would he have achieved even if he had lived the way he did, had he not been the best in his profession? Simply put, can a lesser intellectual mortal hope to be a Roark?

I had a (let's call him R) in my MBA. R was 22 years old, the youngest in our Nobody in the really knew him let alone be friends with him. Even the professors, for some reason, always ignored him. In fact, we realized his existence only when, one day in the second month of our first term, the finance professor made fun of him with his mid term answer paper. You see, we were asked to calculate the net returns on two investment schemes and suggest which of them was better. There were fairly complicated formulae involved and my solution which had received ten out of ten was three pages long.

R gave the solution (unfortunately, the wrong one) in two lines flat. It did not involve any numbers or calculations; it was in plain English and based on simple logic. When our professor asked him about the calculations, he said that there was no need of any. There was a considerable mockery of him, but he did not react or accept that his solution was preposterous. He reasoned that even with using all the formulae of the text book methodology, the final answer could still have been wrong. The same way, his approach and logic had not been incorrect. But the final result went astray due to a bad assumption he had made.

I cannot help but compare R with Rand's Roark. Like Roark, R was shockingly original. He always presented something very novel and revolutionary. He was subjected to considerable degradation and humiliation. Others either avoided him totally or tried to help him, which R always refused. He was considered arrogant, brainless and lazy. Still, he refused to yield to others' standards of academic excellence. He always stood for what he represented and at no point of time, betrayed any of his He was a very sharp contrast to some others who seemed to shine the professors' shoes for research assistantships and scholarships.

But, was he brilliant like Roark? Well, if he was, he certainly did not seem so. Throughout the two years of MBA, R was always at the bottom of the Not even in a single course, did he manage at least a ‘B'. His CGPA was 5.67 (out of 10), the least in our Even in extra curricular activities, he never stood out. The last I heard of him, he was doing a distance course in psychology and working in a C rated B school as a part time instructor for 'Business Strategy'. A very mediocre life with no achievements of any sort, at all. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that he is not an intellectually gifted individual.

In 'The Fountainhead', Roark says that man has always been an independent thinker and all the progress of the world has been brought by independent and original thinking. Roark, himself, was brilliant and the best architect among the lot. Therefore, he was able to make a difference to himself as well as to the society. He could erect some architectural marvels which were hailed as the best by certain sections of the society. Thus, he got an opportunity to put forth what he practiced. But what about the lesser intelligent people? Can they afford to live like Roark? Even if they do, what do they gain out of it? How do they contribute to the society? In my previous example, what did R gain? What did the society, at large, gain from him? In such a case, is it not more worthwhile to, maybe, live like a Peter Keating or a Toohey? Why not?

History has given us many achievers. People resembling all the four principal characters of 'The Fountainhead' - Keating, Toohey, Wynand and Roark have contributed immensely to the way we live today. They were successful; many of them went to become immensely rich, most of them changed the way people were living. In my opinion, therefore, it might be wrong for everyone to try living like Roark. Not everyone can benefit out of it. Not everyone is advised to do it.